Note to admins reviewing any of my admin actions (expand to read). |
---|
I am often busy in that "real life" of which you may have read. Blocks are the most serious things we can do: they prevent users from interacting with Wikipedia. Block reviews are urgent. Unless I say otherwise in the block message on the user's talk page, I am happy for any uninvolved admin to unblock a user I have blocked, provided that there is good evidence that the problem that caused the block will not be repeated. All I ask is that you leave a courtesy note here and/or on WP:ANI, and that you are open to re-blocking if I believe the problem is not resolved - in other words, you can undo the block, but if I strongly feel that the issue is still live, you re-block and we take it to the admin boards. The same applies in spades to blocks with talk page access revoked. You are free to restore talk page access of a user for whom I have revoked it, unless it's been imposed or restored following debate on the admin boards. User:DGG also has my permission to undelete or unprotect any article I have deleted and/or salted, with the same request to leave a courtesy note, and I'll rarely complain if any uninvolved admin does this either, but there's usually much less urgency about an undeletion so I would prefer to discuss it first - or ask DGG, two heads are always better than one. I may well add others in time, DGG is just one person with whom I frequently interact whose judgment I trust implicitly. Any WP:BLP issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on WP:AN or WP:ANI for review. The usual definition of uninvolved applies: you're not currently in an argument with me, you're not part of the original dispute or an editor of the affected article... you know. Apply WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
![]() Archives |
---|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 |
Threads older than 7 days may be archived by MiszaBot. |
- In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
- My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
- Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
- My Last.fm profile
- vGuyUK on Twitter | SceptiGuy on Twitter
You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.
- Obligatory disclaimer
- I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?
About me
I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I am an amateur baritone and professional nerd. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to subdue dissent, actually it's just me as a middle aged parent of young adults saying "oh no, not this shit again". I am British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Predatory open access publishing
These two publishers are on Beall's list, feel free to suggest others with DOI roots I can work on.
- DOI 10.4172: OMICS Group
- esciencecentral.org
- DOI 10.4236: Scientific Research Publishing (mainly done)
- scirp.org
Contents
COI intervention
@JzG: Thank you for intervening, at my request, to revert the COI edits at Machine Zone. I appreciate having an experienced editor and administrator at my back for reverting the MZ employee's edits. I must admit, though, that I was taken aback by your edit note, "Horrible article," and the reversion of most of my own recent edits along with the declared COI edits.
I'd appreciate your advice, because I'm a bona fide Wikipedian earnestly trying to expand that article beyond Start-class, by adding appropriate NPOV content from reliable sources. I have a personal interest in the topic, and no COI. I was the one who spotted, questioned, and reported the now-declared COI editor, whose obviously promotional edits were inserted into an article I was working on improving.
Do you have any tips on how I might expand the article in a more satisfactory way than before – one that avoids being so horrible that my intended improvements get swept up with the company's COI edits? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC), revised 19:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Have a look at Wikipedia:Words to watch for a start. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Guy. My own edits included violations of WP:SAY and WP:RELTIME at the least. And the declared COI editor's insertions were short in length, but so egregious that his/her edits to the lead paragraph poisoned the article with their promotional tone. I will slowly and carefully start adding back some revisions of my own material, along with a good-cop/bad-cop suggestion on the talk page to the MZ employee, strongly recommending no more editing by MZ, or else you may be back again with the meat-axe. (That advice has the virtue of being sincere.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. And don't start by talking about flagship products or anything like that, its PR guff that does not belong here. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I entirely agree. I do plan to use the phrase "known for" in the lead, which is supported by a third-party source that used those words – contradicting the COI editor! – to state that MZ is known for their two well-advertised games. (There's no third-party source that says MZ is known or notable for the brand-new service that they'd like to promote here.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- My expansion of the article is directed to encyclopedic factual matter about MZ's early years and recent history, using reliable sources. It looks as though MZ might prefer to have the company's history erased and rewritten to focus on the new product, but that certainly is not what we're here for. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. And don't start by talking about flagship products or anything like that, its PR guff that does not belong here. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
More on the E-Cat
JzG, I do appreciate that this article is a very tough place to keep in order and maintain a WP:NPOV. FWIW, I am pretty sure we share views on Rossi's enterprises. But honestly, omitting to mention Industrial Heat's investment (which I now discovered, despite Forbes and other sources) and also the lawsuit is in my humble opinion a breach of objectivity. This is relevant and notable information, even if we are probably describing a big fraud. -- Egil (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- FFS please use {{Ping}} and keep this on Talk, it's spread like kudzu already. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Biodynamic agriculture
Jzg, I see that you have placed a month's protection on Biodynamic agriculture. I am writing to ask you to remove this protection, as I don't think the threshold of Persistent disruptive editing has been met. I have no plans to edit the article further until consensus is reached on the talk page. I do not believe my two reverts in response to incomplete arguments in edit summaries constitute 'Persistent disruptive editing'. Snl223, who added the new referenced content recently wrote 'I won't bother to try to edit this page again.' and thus has no plans to disruptively edit.Dialectric (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see an edit war, a report on the noticeboard, and a user flouncing, which tends to mean nothing. Wait a week at least. The article is reasonably stable until this incident. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
'Scientist' as a name...
...To be fair to Rossi, he could be an extremely fradulent and bad scientist, but it wouldnt make him not a scientist. Any more than being incompetant makes Eddie the Eagle not a ski jumper. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur) does not call him a scientist. He is an entrepreneur, an inventor, and a fraudster (not necessarily in that order). Guy (Help!) 10:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)